Faster Adoptions even if not in best interests of child...Cameron says

[leclerc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36295213

What infuriates me is the following quote: "We will legislate to tip the balance in favour of permanent adoption where that is the right thing for the child - even when that means overriding family ties"

All the research into adoption and the law as it stands is that adoption is a last resort where ONLY where the best interests of the child deems it necessary would it happen. However, Cameron wants to ride roughshod over the courts and the best available evidence into this and give more emphasis on the word of a social worker(I can get you cases where they have been struck of for lying) and where it goes completely against the widely accepted norms.

I have no issue with Cameron be "pro adoption", although I have severe reservations about this depending on the circumstances of each case but the Supreme Court will throw out the law because of its incompatibility with other laws.

[PAWS]

Re: Faster Adoptions even if not in best interests of child...Cameron says

This reminds me of what the Australians did to the Aboriginal Children. Absolute disgrace!
I feel a rant coming on.

[leclerc]

Re: Faster Adoptions even if not in best interests of child...Cameron says

There was a recent story which said local authorities are now going through the process of making potential adoptees "legal guardians" so that they don't have to visit.

On a personal note, my niece is nearly 5 years old and was taken into care about a month after being born and yet we are nearly at 5 years and she has not been adopted. The LA concerned firstly fought to stop the splitting up of the children and then actively sought it after having gained a placement order via the courts(we lost the appeal btw). My other niece was adopted last year.

To quote the famous case which Lady Hale dissented in judgement re B(A Child) 2013:

198. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the test for severing the relationship between parent and child is very strict: only in exceptional circumstances and where motivated by overriding requirements pertaining to the child's welfare, in short, where nothing else will do. In many cases, and particularly where the feared harm has not yet materialised and may never do so, it will be necessary to explore and attempt alternative solutions. As was said in Re C and B [2001] 1 FLR 611, at para 34,
"Intervention in the family may be appropriate, but the aim should be to reunite the family when the circumstances enable that, and the effort should be devoted towards that end. Cutting off all contact and the relationship between the child or children and their family is only justified by the overriding necessity of the interests of the child."